Community Reviews

Meh. I am not a fan of this writer's style. Too much surplusage. Tries to convey what the immediate area (Chatham) was like in the mid-80's, and comes across like what the author was at the time, a weekender. The other annoying bit is that the author doesn't really offer up any theory on the crime, while simultaneously not just telling the uncolored fact. He also on occasion adds his own non-existent involvement in the thing and the crime's impact into the story, that almost seems to try to be aMeh. I am not a fan of this writer's style. Too much surplusage. Tries to convey what the immediate area (Chatham) was like in the mid-80's, and comes across like what the author was at the time, a weekender. The other annoying bit is that the author doesn't really offer up any theory on the crime, while simultaneously not just telling the uncolored fact. He also on occasion adds his own non-existent involvement in the thing and the crime's impact into the story, that almost seems to try to be a confidential/ insider tantalizer, but really just sort of falls flat. The facts he collected were relatively good, and give a decent picture of the legal landscape of both trials (though the second trial of Rossney is barely covered, though it was almost as closely followed by the locals at the time as the first trial of Gates.) Ultimately this book tends to paint no particular picture, but leaves one with the feeling that one has just had a look at one family's dirty underwear. I would not recommend this book. Quite plainly, it was a waste of 3 dollars in a used book store....more